Just a clarification on numbers
In James (internal) table enwps share of total number of eligible votes
is 35,4%
Participation rate state from enwp was 8,26% against mean for all 9,5%.
If enwp is excluded the participation rate for all of the rest stands at
10,2%
Enwp users also include users from non-en countries, and user from en
countries will also be found on other wikis like Commons (3,5% of total
eligible voters, with a turnout similar to enwp) but this does not
change the bottom line, participation rate from enwp has been lower then
from the rest of the communities (de, fr, it, ru, es, pl rates being a
little above mean of rest, zh and pt a little below and ja much below)
Anders
Milos Rancic skrev den 2015-06-01 09:48:
So, there are two good news and one bad.
The most important good one is that efforts made by James, Philippe
and EC have given [global] results. It's always good to hear that we
depend less on weather conditions and more on our own work. So, thank
you for your good work! :)
I agree with you in relation to the standing committee. Most
importantly, we need it exactly because of the continuity of the work.
Besides obvious benefits, standing committee would be able to create
the foundations for elections all over the movement, not just for
Board and FDC and it could become the guardian of the democracy inside
of our movement. With standing Election committee, it would be much
easier to organize any kind of referenda, as well.
The second good news, the Ukrainian one, is on the line of the first
one and it shows that it's possible to engage particular community.
Nat, it would be good if you could prepare the analysis of what you
did on Ukrainian Wikipedia and present it not just inside of an online
document, but during the conferences in 2015 and 2016. Obviously,
you've shown one of pretty valid methods to increase participation in
elections. That's good not just because of the magic number of 25%,
but because Ukrainian Wikimedians have much better potential to be
involved into the global matters in the future.
Very bad news is participation of English Wikipedians; and thus, to be
more precise, American Wikimedians. More than 50% (I think, the number
is more than 60%) of our editors are Americans (and, I think, 80% of
money comes from US). While it's better to have more balanced ratio,
those are the facts and whenever we are talking about "us" and "our
movement", we have to have in mind that more than half of "us" are
Americans. Low participation there means low participation in the
numbers which matter the most.
We are still inside of the field of small numbers. Engaging one or few
particular communities could give us impression that we are going very
well, while we are in troubles. Thus, we should find a way to increase
participation of our largest community. At this moment we have a
number of chapters and user groups in US and Ukrainian experience
could help them, too. Besides on-wiki engagement, it would be good,
for example, to have few community meetings organized by chapters or
user groups before every election.
Anders, this list is quite relevant. It's the main forum of our
movement and it represents the movement well (up to this moment,
thought it's not always the case, this thread has involved five
non-native English speakers and just two native ones; that's much
better than editor ratio). And although my method of checking
community health is quite arbitrary, it could give a clue of what's
going on here. If we are more engaged it will affect this list.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anders Wennersten
<m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
I believe the Ukrain case well illustrates a key characteristic of this
election - the high participation rate from the middle and small sized
communities. It looks like we have we had voters from 184 wikis
participating, an amazing number!
As greg already pointed this is probably related to the Board clear
statement for the election, the high number and diversity of candidates and
active encouragement from local communites and local affiliates.
And for the original question from Milos. Yes I agree we should try to
collect more data on the health of our communities. And participation rate
in election can be one of these indicators. And then it tells us, we have
vibrant communities among the middle and small sized projects, but people
from these extremely rarely participate in lists like this. This list I find
mainly engage people from our biggest communities, especially English, and
in this election actually the participation rate from enwp was lower then
the mean participation rate....
Anders
attolippip skrev den 2015-06-01 00:14:
There were only 9 votes from Ukrainian community in 2013, I believe
So this year we just made sure that our community REALLY knows about the
elections, thus we:
- translated the candidates statements into Ukrainian
- prepared a short table with the essence of these statements in Ukrainian
and posted it in the Village pump [1]
- created a list of everybody eligible to vote from Ukrainian Wikipedia
and
sent them a message with invitation to vote and with the links to read
more
about the candidates via talk pages
- and just talked :)
[1]
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B0-2015
Best regards,
antanana
ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
2015-06-01 1:00 GMT+03:00 Johan Jönsson <brevlis...@gmail.com>:
2015-05-31 22:57 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com>:
... it would be good to talk a bit about the state of our community
and movement.
Initially, I was quite positively surprised by the fact that this will
be the best WMF Board elections ever in the terms of turnout of
voters. It will beat 2007 elections and it will be likely 2.5 times
better than previous one.
I would really like to know what's so different than in 2013. Also, if
this is the sign of the community health, how come that we are now
better than we were at the peak of our movement?
There's a fair chance the difference says far more about the amount of
effort spent getting the word out about the election, than about how much
the movement cares about it compared to previous elections.
//Johan Jönsson
--
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
